Odd Lots · Monday, July 27, 2026
Branko Milanovic outlines the potential risks associated with the rise of 'national market liberalism,' including heightened great power conflict, increased income inequality, and the consolidation of plutocracy. He acknowledges historical debates on whether economic openness leads to peace or conflict, citing thinkers from Montesquieu to Hobson. Milanovic suggests an optimistic scenario hinges on resolving current wars and renegotiating international economic relations to give greater influence to countries like China and India.
“Let me put the other had now, the optimistic had you know, the chapter two in the book deals with precisely that question. That was question that I think is really so relevant. It says, what did the economies of political sciences think about the relationship between openness slash globalization and war on peace?”
“And then you have people from Montesquieu who actually believe that trade leads to immediately to peace because we are both trying to actually sell our goods. We have to be nice to each other and stuff like that. I remember that, And of course the other extreme is John Hobson with the imperial is we in nineteen oh two, and then Rosa Luxembourg and Lending who actually and Shuan Pater who believe that when you have large powers, they fight for markets.”
“If we could top and find cease fire and a solution of the war in Ukraine and Russia, in the Middle East, Iran and the United States and Israel, I think that we would then at least eliminate the possibility of a huge war, which then, of course, if you have a huge war, all the chips are off, you know, you have no idea what will happen. But at least then we could start, I think, redesigning economic system, as people have said, a new Breton Woods and having a solution where actually China would have greater influence, and not only China, India as well.”